I do not feel inclined to examine minutely. The change which has taken
place in the mode of administering government in modern times, renders
it of less practical importance than it was formerly, when so much
depended upon the personal talents and activity of the reigning prince.
It may be added, that the evils incident to a female reign will be
less felt under such a constitution as that of Britain, than under a
pure and absolute monarchy. This last consideration is urged by Aylmer;
and here his reasoning is most satisfactory.[318] The Blast bears
the marks of hasty composition.[319] The Harborow has evidently been
written with great care; it contains a good collection of historical
facts bearing on the question; and, though more distinguished for
rhetorical exaggeration than logical precision, the reasoning is
ingeniously conducted, and occasionally enlivened by strokes of
humour.[320] It is, upon the whole, a curious as well as rare work.
{223} After all, it is easier to vindicate the expediency of
continuing the practice, where it has been established by law
and usage, than to support the affirmative, when the question is
propounded as a general thesis on government. It may fairly be
questioned, if Aylmer has refuted the principal arguments of his
opponent; and had Knox deemed it prudent to rejoin, he might have
exposed the fallacy of his reasoning in different instances. In
replying to the argument from the apostolical canon,[321] the
archdeacon is not a little puzzled. Distrusting his distinction
between the greater office, “the ecclesiastical function,” and the
less, “extern policy,” he argues, that the apostle’s prohibition may
be considered as temporary, and peculiarly applicable to the women of
his own time; and he insists that his clients shall not, _in toto_, be
excluded from teaching and ruling in the church, any more than in the
state. “Me thinke,” says he, very seriously, “even in this poynte, we
must use επιεικια, a certain moderacion, not absolutely, and in every
wise to debar them herein (as it shall please God) to serve Christ.
Are there not, in England, women, think you, that for their learninge
and wisdom, could tell their householde and neighbouris as good a
tale as the best Sir Jhone there?”[322] Beyond {224} all question.
Who can doubt that the learned Lady Elizabeth, who on a certain time
interrupted the dean of her chapel, and told him to “stick to his
text,” was able to make as good a sermon as any of her clergy? or,
that she was better qualified for other parts of the duty, when she
composed a book of prayers for herself, while they were obliged to use
one made to their hands? In fact, the view which the archdeacon gave
of the text was necessary to vindicate the authority of his queen, who
was head, or supreme governor, of the church, as well as of the state.
She who, by law, had supreme authority over all the reverend and right
reverend divines in the land, with power to superintend, suspend,
and control them in all their ecclesiastical functions――who, by her
injunctions, could direct the primate himself when to preach, and how
to preach――and who could license and silence ministers at her pleasure,
must have been bound very moderately indeed by the apostolical
prohibition, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence.” Reason would also say, that she
had an equal right to assume the exercise of the office in her own
person, if she chose to avail herself of that right; and had she
issued a congé d’élire, accompanied with her royal recommendation to
elect some learned sister to a vacant see, the archdeacon at least
would not have felt so squeamish at complying with it, as the Italian
university did at conferring the degree of Doctor in Divinity upon the
learned Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca.[323]
{225} There are some things in the Harborow which might have been
unpalatable to the queen, if the author had not sweetened them with
that personal flattery, which was as agreeable to Elizabeth as to
others of her sex and rank, and which he took care to administer in
sufficient quantities before concluding his work. The ladies will be
ready to excuse a slight slip of the pen in the good archdeacon, in
consideration of the handsome manner in which he has defended their
right to rule; but they will scarcely believe that the following
description of the sex could proceed from him. “Some women,” says
he, “be wiser, better learned, discreater, constanter, than a number
of men;” but others (“the most part,” according to his biographer)
he describes[324] as “fond, foolish, wanton, flibbergibs, tatlers,
trifling, wavering, witles, without counsel, feable, carles, rashe,
proud, daintie, nise, tale‑bearers, eves‑droppers, rumour‑raisers,
evil‑tongued, worse‑minded, and, in every wise, doltified with the
dregges of the devil’s doungehill!!!” The rude author of the monstrous
Blast never spoke of the sex in terms half so disrespectful as these.
One would suppose that Aylmer had already renounced the character
of advocate of the fair sex, and recanted his principles on that
head, as he did respecting the titles and revenues of bishops, which
he inveighed against before his return from exile, but afterwards
accepted with little scruple; and, when reminded of the language which
he had formerly used, apologized for himself by saying, {226} “When I
was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away
childish things.”[325]――But it is time to return to the narrative.
Our Reformer’s letter to the protestant lords in Scotland produced
its intended effect, in reanimating their drooping courage. At a
consultative meeting, held at Edinburgh in December 1557, they
unanimously resolved to adhere to one another, and exert themselves in
advancing the Reformation. Having subscribed a solemn bond of mutual
assurance, they renewed their invitation to Knox; and being afraid
that he might hesitate on account of their former irresolution, they
wrote to Calvin, to employ his influence to induce him to comply.
Their letters did not reach Geneva until November 1558.[326] By the
same conveyance, Knox received letters of a later date, communicating
the most agreeable intelligence respecting the progress which the
reformed cause had made, and the flourishing appearance which it
continued to wear, in Scotland.
Through the exertions of our Reformer, during his residence among them
in the year 1556, and in pursuance of the instructions which he left
behind him, the protestants had formed themselves into congregations,
which met in different parts of the country with greater or less
privacy, according to the opportunities which they enjoyed. Having
come to the resolution of withdrawing from the popish worship, they
provided for their religious instruction and {227} mutual edification
in the best manner that their circumstances would permit. As there
were no ministers among them, they continued for some time to be
deprived of the dispensation of the sacraments;[327] but certain
intelligent and pious men of their number were chosen to read the
scriptures, to exhort, and offer up prayers in their assemblies.
Convinced of the necessity of order and discipline in their societies,
and desirous to have them organized, as far as was in their power,
agreeably to the institution of Christ, they next proceeded to choose
elders for the inspection of their manners, to whom they promised
subjection, and deacons for the collection and distribution of alms
to the poor.[328] Edinburgh was the first place in which this order
was established: Dundee the first town in which a reformed church
was completely organized, {228} provided with a regular minister,
and favoured with the dispensation of the sacraments.
During the war with England, which began in autumn 1556, and continued
through the following year, the protestants enjoyed considerable
liberty; and they improved it with great zeal and success. The clergy
were not indifferent to the progress which the reformed opinions were
daily making, and they prevailed with the regent to summon such as
had presumed to preach without their authority; but she was obliged
to abandon the process against them, in consequence of the arrival of
certain gentlemen from the west country, who demanded their release in
a tone which declared that they were resolved not to be refused.[329]
At a meeting of the nobles and barons attached to the Reformation,
held at Edinburgh in December 1557, two resolutions were adopted for
regulating their conduct in the present delicate juncture. It was
agreed, in the first place, that they should rest satisfied for the
present with requiring that prayers, and the lessons of the Old and
New Testament, should be read in English, according to the book of
Common Prayer,[330] in every parish, on Sundays and festival days,
by the curates of the respective parishes, or, if they were unable or
unwilling, by such persons within the bounds as were best qualified.
And, secondly, that the reformed preachers should teach in private
houses only, till the government should allow them {229} to preach
in public.[331] The first resolution has been represented as an
unwarrantable assumption of authority by this reforming assembly, and
as implying that they had a right to dictate to the whole nation, by
setting aside the established worship, and imposing a new form. This
construction is, however, irreconcilable with the situation in which
they were then placed, and with the moderate and submissive tone in
which they continued to urge their claims at a subsequent period.
It is rather to be viewed as expressing the opinion of that meeting
respecting the degree of reformation which individuals of their body
might introduce, in places to which their authority and influence
extended. And, accordingly, it was reduced to practice in many
parishes where protestant barons resided, and where the people were
disposed to imitate their example.[332]
In pursuance of the second resolution agreed on at the general
meeting, the earl of Argyle undertook the protection of John Douglas,
a carmelite friar, who had embraced the reformed sentiments;[333]
and the rest of the preachers were received into the houses of other
barons, and employed to preach as their chaplains. This measure
alarmed the clergy no less than the former practice of itinerant
preaching had done. They saw that it would be vain to commence
prosecutions against preachers who were entertained in the families
of the principal men in the kingdom; and they resolved to exert all
their influence to deprive them of {230} such powerful patronage.
Presuming upon the easy temper of the aged earl of Argyle, and
upon the friendship which had long subsisted between his family
and the Hamiltons, the archbishop of St Andrews wrote a letter to
that nobleman in a very insinuating strain, and at the same time
sent a relation of his own, Sir David Hamilton, with instructions
to represent the danger to which he exposed his noble house by
countenancing Douglas, and to intreat him, in the most earnest manner,
to withdraw his protection from such a pestilent heretic. Argyle’s
reply was temperate and respectful, but at the same time firm and
spirited: he not only vindicated the doctrine taught by his chaplain,
and refused to dismiss him, but made several shrewd and pointed
remarks which the archbishop could not fail to apply to himself.
The bishop having written that he felt himself bound “in honour and
conscience” to enquire into the heresies of which Douglas was accused,
the earl replies: “He preiches against idolatrie, I remit to your
lordschip’s conscience gif it be heresie or not; he preiches against
adulterie and fornicatioun, I referre that to your lordschip’s
conscience;[334] he preiches against hypocrisie, I referre that to
your lordschip’s conscience; he preiches against all maner of abuses
and corruptioun of Christis sincere religioun, I referre that to your
lordschip’s conscience. My lord, I exhort yow, in Christis name, to
wey all {231} thir affairis in your conscience, and considder if it be
your dewtie also not onlie to thole[335] this, bot in like maner to do
the same. This is all, my lord, that I varie in my age, and na uther
thing bot that I knew not befoir these offences to be abhominable to
God, and now, knawing his will by manifestatioun of his word, abhorres
thame.” Referring to the bishop’s offer to send him a learned and
catholic teacher, the earl replies, “God Almichtie send us mony of
that sorte, that will preiche trewlie, and nathing but ane catholic
universall christian fayth; and we Hieland rude pepill hes mister[336]
of thame. And if your lordschip wald get and provyde me sic a man, I
sould provyde him a corporal leving as to my self, with grit thanks to
your lordschip; for trewlie, I and many ma hes grit mister of sic men.
And becaus I am abill to sustain ma nor ane of thame, I will requeist
your lordschip earnestlie to provyde me sic a man as ye wrait; for the
harvest is grit, and thair ar few labouraris.”[337]
Foiled in his attempts to prevail on the nobility to withdraw their
protection from the preachers, the archbishop determined to wreak
his vengeance upon such of them as were still within his power, and
proceeded to revive those cruel measures which had been suspended
for several years, by the political circumstances of the country
rather than by the clemency and moderation of the clergy. Walter Mill,
parish‑priest of Lunan in Angus, having been condemned as a {232}
heretic in the time of cardinal Beatoun, had escaped from execution,
and continued to preach, sometimes in private, and at other times
openly, in different quarters of the kingdom. Being lately discovered
by one of the archbishop’s spies, he was brought to trial at
St Andrews. He appeared before the court so worn out with age, and the
hardships which he had endured, that it was not expected he would be
able to answer the questions which might be put to him; but, to the
surprise of all, he conducted his defence with great spirit. Such was
the compassion excited by his appearance, and the horror which was now
felt at the punishment to which he was doomed, that the clergy, after
pronouncing him guilty, could not procure a secular judge to pass
sentence of death upon him, and the archbishop was at last obliged
to employ a worthless servant of his own to perform the odious task.
On the 28th of August 1558, Mill expired amidst the flames, uttering
these words: “As for me, I am fourscore and two years old, and cannot
live long by course of nature; but a hundred better shall rise out of
the ashes of my bones. I trust in God, I shall be the last that shall
suffer death in Scotland for this cause!”[338]
This barbarous and illegal execution produced effects of the greatest
importance. It raised the horror of the nation to an incredible
pitch; and as it was believed, at that time, that the regent was not
accessory {233} to the deed, their indignation was directed wholly
against the clergy. Throwing aside all fear, and disregarding those
restraints which prudence, or respect for established order, had
hitherto imposed on them, the people now assembled openly to join
in the reformed worship, and avowed their determination to adhere to
it at all hazards. Harlow, Douglas, Paul Methven, and some others,
were emboldened to break through the regulations to which they had
submitted, and began to preach, and administer the sacraments, with
greater publicity than formerly.[339] In the month of October,[340]
they were joined by John Willock, who returned a second time from
Embden.
Meanwhile, the protestant barons, having assembled at Edinburgh in the
month of July,[341] had resolved to lay their complaints in a formal
manner before the regent. They renewed the request which they had
formerly made, that she would, by her authority, and in concurrence
with the parliament, restrain the {234} violence of the clergy,
correct the flagrant and insufferable abuses which prevailed in the
church, and grant to them and their brethren the liberty of religious
instruction and worship, at least according to a restricted plan
which they laid before her, and to which they were willing to submit,
till their grievances should be deliberately examined and legally
redressed.[342] Their petition was presented to the regent, in the
palace of Holyroodhouse, by Sir James Sandilands of Calder, in the
presence of a number of the nobility and bishops. Her reply was such
as to persuade them that she was friendly to their proposals; she
promised, that she would take measures for carrying them legally into
effect, as soon as it was in her power, and assured them, that, in the
meantime, they might depend on her protection.[343]
It did not require many arguments to persuade Knox to comply with an
invitation, which was accompanied with such gratifying intelligence;
and he began immediately to prepare for his journey to Scotland. {235}
The future settlement of the congregation under his charge, occupied
him for some time. Information being received of the death of Mary,
queen of England,[344] and the accession of Elizabeth, the protestant
refugees hastened to return to their native country. The congregation
at Geneva, having met to return thanks to God for this deliverance,
agreed to send one of their number with letters to their brethren
in different places of the continent, and particularly in Frankfort,
congratulating them on the late happy change, and requesting
a confirmation of the mutual reconciliation which had already
been effected, the burial of all past offences, and a brotherly
co‑operation, in endeavouring to obtain such a settlement of religion
in England as would be agreeable to all the sincere well‑wishers
of the Reformation. A favourable return to their letters being
obtained,[345] they took leave of the hospitable city, and set out for
their native country. By them Knox sent letters to some of his former
acquaintances, who were now in the court of Elizabeth, requesting
permission to travel through England on his way to Scotland.
In the month of January 1559, our Reformer took his leave of Geneva
for the last time.[346] In addition to former marks of respect, the
republic, before his {236} departure, conferred on him the freedom
of the city.[347] He left his wife and family behind him, until he
should ascertain that they could live with safety in Scotland. Upon
his arrival at Dieppe, in the middle of March, he received information
that the English government had refused to grant him liberty to pass
through their dominions. The request had appeared so reasonable to his
own mind, considering the station which he had held in that country,
and the object of his present journey, that he once thought of
proceeding to London without waiting for a formal permission; yet it
was with some difficulty that those who presented his letters escaped
imprisonment.[348]
This impolitic severity was occasioned by the informations of some of
the exiles, who had not forgotten {237} the old quarrel at Frankfort,
and had accused of disloyalty and disaffection to the queen, not only
Knox, but all those who had been under his charge at Geneva, whom
they represented as proselytes to the opinion which he had published
against female government.[349] There was not an individual who could
believe that Knox had the most distant eye to Elizabeth in publishing
the obnoxious book; nor a person of judgment who could seriously think
that her government was exposed to the slightest danger from him or
his associates, who felt no less joy at her auspicious accession than
their brethren.[350] If he had been imprudent in that publication, if
he had {238} “swerved from the particular question to the general,”
his error (to use the words of his respondent) “rose not of malice,
but of zeal, and by looking more to the present cruelty, than to
the inconveniences that after might follow;” and it was the part of
generosity and of good policy to overlook the fault. Instead of this,
Elizabeth and her counsellors took up the charge in a serious light;
and the accused were treated with such harshness and disdain, that
they repented of leaving their late asylum to return to their native
country. One cannot help feeling indignant at this weak revenge, when
it is considered that Elizabeth had admitted to favour, and retained
at court, persons who had endeavoured to prevent her succession, and
who had thirsted for her blood;[351] and that those who, under the
preceding reign, had advised and practised the greatest severities
against the protestants, were now treated with the utmost lenity.
Even the infamous Bonner was allowed to appear at court, and, although
the queen shuddered at the thought of a man who was polluted with
so much blood kissing her hand, yet was he at this time going about
London without the smallest molestation.[352] In the {239} first
parliament of Elizabeth, one Dr Story made a speech, in which he had
the effrontery to justify the cruelties of Mary, to boast of his own
activity in carrying her orders into execution, and to regret that
measures still more violent and effectual had not been adopted for the
utter extirpation of heresy.[353] Nor does it appear that this speech
was resented either by the house or by the queen.
De nobis, post hæc, tristis sententia fertur:
Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.
The refusal of his request, and the harsh treatment of his flock,
touched to the quick the irritable temper of our Reformer; and it
was with some difficulty that he suppressed the desire which he felt
rising in his breast, to prosecute a controversy which he had resolved
to abandon. “My first Blast,” says he, in a letter, dated Dieppe,
6th April 1559, “hath blown from me all my friends in England. My
conscience bears record, that yet I seek the favour of my God; and
so I am in the less fear. The second Blast, I fear, {240} shall sound
somewhat more sharp, except that men be more moderate than I hear
they are.――England hath refused me; but because, before, it did refuse
Christ Jesus, the less do I regard the loss of this familiarity. And
yet have I been a secret and assured friend to thee, O England, in
cases which thyself could not have remedied.”[354] But greater designs
occupied his mind, and engrossed his attention. It was not for the
sake of personal safety, nor from the vanity of appearing at court,
that he desired to pass through England. He felt the natural wish to
visit his old acquaintance in that country, and was anxious for an
opportunity of once more addressing those to whom he had preached,
especially at Newcastle and Berwick. But there was another object
which he had still more at heart, and in which the welfare of both
England and Scotland were concerned.